Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

Apparently the Boston bomber suspect wasn't armed when he was fired upon

I just read an article that the bomber who holed up in a parked boat was unarmed. Is that even news worthy? He appears to be a legitimate suspect that bombed a public space killing and injuring people. Does it matter that he wasn't armed when he was running from law enforcement?

Authorities said they were desperate to capture Dzhokhar Tsarnaev so he could be questioned. The FBI, however, declined to discuss what triggered the gunfire.

Video

Speaking at the memorial service of slain MIT
police officer Sean Collier, who was killed while pursuing the Boston
bombing suspects, Vice President Biden praised Collier as "a wonderful
kid" and promised, “we will not yield to fear.”

Other law enforcement officials said the shooting may have been
prompted by the chaos of the moment and some action that led the
officers present to believe Tsarnaev had fired a weapon or was about to
detonate explosives.

These new details emerged as investigators continued their examination of the movements and motives of Tsarnaev, 19, and his brother, Tamerlan, in last week’s coordinated bombing, which killed three people and wounded more than 250.

I am a retired cop as many of you know. I wondered this immediately. If he did not fire first then there's a problem. We are not here to execute. I could see however, a well placed shot to the neck by ONE shooter in the event they thought he was wearing a suicide vest.

But, there's no evidence either way if he was definitively armed or not. Time will tell.

His brother died while driving a car they car jacked. One or both of them appeared to be armed during that chase. Is it not prudent to assume that the one that escaped is likely armed and dangerous? Just curious about your thoughts and opinions on the matter.

Thats what i was thinking too. Their priority was to try to take him alive so that he could be questioned and we could find out if he was part of a larger group or had other attacks planned. When they first approached the boat they shot at it, witnesses said there was a LOT of gunfire at the beginning of the encounter in the boat. Why did they start off by shooting at him if he wasnt shooting back and they wanted to take him alive? So now we know Tsarnaev was not only unarmed, but he was barely concious He didnt even flinch when they were tossing flashbang grenades into the boat.

I was following this story on reddit where people were updating with info from the police scanners every couple of seconds, Tsarnaev didnt seem to put up a fight at all in the boat. He was in and out of conciousness due to lack of blood the whole time. The most movement he made was sitting up at one point. I dont understand why they all opened fire on a kid who was weak to the point of death and who wasnt putting up a fight, when their goal was to arrest him alive.

*shrug* like you said. Time will tell.

Quoting JoshRachelsMAMA:

I am a retired cop as many of you know. I wondered this immediately. If he did not fire first then there's a problem. We are not here to execute. I could see however, a well placed shot to the neck by ONE shooter in the event they thought he was wearing a suicide vest.

But, there's no evidence either way if he was definitively armed or not. Time will tell.

I had no idea that you are a retired cop. Good to have you here with us, unscathed. Anyway...if this young man was shot in the neck/throat as most news reports are claiming, how could he have hid for a lengthy amount of time without succumbing to that single shot and dying? Why do I feel it makes more sense that he was shot at while inside the boat, and unarmed? I have a problem with that scenario because it does not seem as if authorities wanted to take him alive at all.

Quoting JoshRachelsMAMA:

I am a retired cop as many of you know. I wondered this immediately. If he did not fire first then there's a problem. We are not here to execute. I could see however, a well placed shot to the neck by ONE shooter in the event they thought he was wearing a suicide vest.

But, there's no evidence either way if he was definitively armed or not. Time will tell.

It is absolutely necessary to assume that he is armed and dangerous. With that said, there is a level of force that we go by.
You can't see the suspect, can't tell if he's armed or not and have not been fired upon (assuming) - then the barrage of bullets was wrong. They are lucky that innocent bystanders (if there were any) were not hurt because of the gunfire. Or that one of those rounds didn't go through a window of a house that was occupied.

Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:Quoting JoshRachelsMAMA:I am a retired cop as many of you know. I wondered this immediately. If he did not fire first then there's a problem. We are not here to execute. I could see however, a well placed shot to the neck by ONE shooter in the event they thought he was wearing a suicide vest.

But, there's no evidence either way if he was definitively armed or not. Time will tell.His brother died while driving a car they car jacked. One or both of them appeared to be armed during that chase. Is it not prudent to assume that the one that escaped is likely armed and dangerous? Just curious about your thoughts and opinions on the matter.

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.